[DRAFT] The Threshold of Majority II

[Eireann Fae]

Setting the age of majority to 0 would not be compliance with clause one especially as it uses the words "typically appropriate and/or sufficient mental capacity". I could not give out straight numbers considering the nature of the NS Multiverse.

"Could a member nation's judiciary not simply grant every individual the rights laid out herein, in accordance with Clause 4? Do not misunderstand us, as we approve of the idea that those that have not naturally reached the arbitrary threshold may still gain their emancipated rights in this form, but the clause does seem to leave a rather large hole that we unfortunately do not know how to fix..." The Faerie Emissary is already deep in thought by the time Rowan finishes her translation, apparently trying to think of a satisfactory solution for all. The Human child sits down and starts mulling things over herself...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It would be Ms. Harper's perception that clause 4 would be used very sparingly in compelling extenuating circumstances. Basically, the minor would have prove financial self-sufficiency and even then the courts may not grant all the majority rights to them.

[Eireann Fae]

It would be Ms. Harper's perception that clause 4 would be used very sparingly in compelling extenuating circumstances. Basically, the minor would have prove financial self-sufficiency and even then the courts may not grant all the majority rights to them.

"Well as it stands, Ms. Harper, there is no such restriction in the clause. As it is written, a judge may grant anybody emancipation at any time, for any reason. We do not have a problem with this, but we do believe this goes against your intention, and should be brought to your attention."

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper will make a start: she has forked the affected clauses into a separate part in the resolution:

Part 2: Emancipation of Minors:-

1. Member countries may provide for individuals to petition for emancipation prior to achieving the Threshold of Majority through their judicial system, provided that the following requirements are ratified:-
a) The minor must be able to prove that they are economically self-sufficient;
b) The minor must be able to prove that they have obtained an educational degree or diploma which allows them to pursue a sustainable career/ambition;

2. An individual who is emancipated in such manner shall be considered over the Threshold of Majority for the purpose of national and international law.

[Eireann Fae]

Ms. Harper will make a start: she has forked the affected clauses into a separate part in the resolution:

Part 2: Emancipation of Minors:-

1. Member countries may provide for individuals to petition for emancipation prior to achieving the Threshold of Majority through their judicial system, provided that the following requirements are ratified:-
a) The minor must be able to prove that they are economically self-sufficient;
b) The minor must be able to prove that they have obtained an educational degree or diploma which allows them to pursue a sustainable career/ambition;

2. An individual who is emancipated in such manner shall be considered over the Threshold of Majority for the purpose of national and international law.

"We have no problem with this either (and actually appreciate its clarity). Nice work, Ms. Harper."

[Linux and the X]

Ms. Harper will make a start: she has forked the affected clauses into a separate part in the resolution:
[blocktext]Part 2: Emancipation of Minors:-

1. Member countries may provide for individuals to petition for emancipation prior to achieving the Threshold of Majority through their judicial system, provided that the following requirements are ratified:-
a) The minor must be able to prove that they are economically self-sufficient;
b) The minor must be able to prove that they have obtained an educational degree or diploma which allows them to pursue a sustainable career/ambition;

How would someone prove economically self-sufficient whilst they are still under their parents control? Their parents may refuse to allow them to be employed, or may allow it but take the money. Even if they kept the money they made, they would not be able to sign a binding contract, which is a requirement for the majority of housing. Similar concerns apply towards receiving an educational certificate.

Of course, there's also the argument that it's unfair to require those under the Magic Age to meet standards that those over the Magic Age are not required to meet.

[Eireann Fae]

How would someone prove economically self-sufficient whilst they are still under their parents control? Their parents may refuse to allow them to be employed, or may allow it but take the money. Even if they kept the money they made, they would not be able to sign a binding contract, which is a requirement for the majority of housing. Similar concerns apply towards receiving an educational certificate.

Of course, there's also the argument that it's unfair to require those under the Magic Age to meet standards that those over the Magic Age are not required to meet.

"We did consider this, and anticipated resistance of this kind. We thought of the same issues you have, and still reached our previously mentioned conclusion. Those that are under the 'Magic Age' and still in the care of their parents do not necessarily require the right to enter their own contracts, and if their parents are what are keeping them from holding a job, then we can assume the parents are still caring for the minor in question. If they were allowed to keep the money they made, they could be economically self-sufficient and apply for judicial emancipation."

[Monikian WA Mission]

Ms. Harper will make a start: she has forked the affected clauses into a separate part in the resolution:
[blocktext]Part 2: Emancipation of Minors:-

1. Member countries may provide for individuals to petition for emancipation prior to achieving the Threshold of Majority through their judicial system, provided that the following requirements are ratified:-
a) The minor must be able to prove that they are economically self-sufficient;
b) The minor must be able to prove that they have obtained an educational degree or diploma which allows them to pursue a sustainable career/ambition;

How would someone prove economically self-sufficient whilst they are still under their parents control? Their parents may refuse to allow them to be employed, or may allow it but take the money. Even if they kept the money they made, they would not be able to sign a binding contract, which is a requirement for the majority of housing. Similar concerns apply towards receiving an educational certificate.

Of course, there's also the argument that it's unfair to require those under the Magic Age to meet standards that those over the Magic Age are not required to meet.

Faliksa Alberton spoke up.

"I would have to question whether or not the Ambassador from Linux and the X has children. I have four, three daughters and a son. Even if I wanted to by the time they reached 5 years of age I would be essentially powerless to stop them from taking employment--they would take the job regardless, although our laws do have restrictions on certain types of employment, mainly those involving the use of dangerous industrial equipment or might be injurious to one's health (for example Cerium mining on Lunar Colony 128), to those over the absolute age of majority (10). That said work for example in a customer service field though would provide for them a means of independence. As for money, our money is not transferable--being that it is not money in the traditional sense but rather a labor credit on the basis of time and intensity worked in exchange for goods/services under the direction of the Ministry of Economics from distribution centers of similar value of labor time/intensity. Even if I wanted to "take" the labor credits earned by my children when they were minors I could not.

"My point is no matter how controlling a parent may be after a certain period of time the child will assume either by out right rebellion or with the consent of the parent responsibility for the actions normally assumed by adults. In our society the years between 7 and 10 serve as a buffer to allow the parents to guide the actions of the child until they reach absolute majority.

"As for the education clause, I would question as to whether or not a degree would be necessary for a lower level of employment, bearing in mind the Living Wage Resolution. For example being an engineer would require a lot of education, but being a preparer in the local spleen shop would not.

"As such I would suggest that the revision be worded thusly:

1. Member countries may provide for individuals to petition for emancipation prior to achieving the Threshold of Majority through their judicial system, provided that the following requirements are ratified:-
a) The minor must be able to prove that they are economically self-sufficient, or would be without the interference of their legal guardians;
b) The minor must be able to prove that they have obtained an educational level which allows them to pursue a sustainable career/ambition;

"I hope this will address the questions raised."

[Charlotte Ryberg]

1. Member countries may provide for individuals to petition for emancipation prior to achieving the Threshold of Majority through their judicial system, provided that the following requirements are ratified:-
a) The minor must be able to prove that they are economically self-sufficient, or would be without the interference of their legal guardians;
b) The minor must be able to prove that they have obtained an educational level which allows them to pursue a sustainable career/ambition;

We also have to consider the fact that just escaping parent's rules cannot be an excuse for early emancipation. On one end of the spectrum are minors who have been victims of abuse. On the other end of the spectrum are minors who are seeking emancipation for reasons such as being dissatisfied with their parents' or guardians' rules. Of course, the provision of early emancipation is up to the member states themselves, as there is already a provision for the removal of children from abusive parents. Minor rewording:

1. Member countries who provide for individuals to petition for emancipation prior to achieving the Threshold of Majority through their judicial system must consider the following requirements for the petition to be valid:-
a) The minor must be able to prove that they are economically self-sufficient, or would be without the interference of their legal guardians;
b) The minor must be able to prove that they have obtained an educational level which allows them to pursue a sustainable career/ambition;

2. An individual who is emancipated in such manner shall be considered over the Threshold of Majority for the purpose of national and international law.

[The Digital Rule]

Why should I set laws forcing minors and other species to face a judge and declare themselves entirely adults before being able to vote?

Children have the right to vote on matters which will affect their lives without facing a judge or being completely emancipated. The argument that they are inexperienced, naive braggards who lack any sense of forethought is thrown into disrepute by the fact that 35 year old rednecks who don't know how to read are also allowed to vote. They might not be able to take responsibility for their lives in other respects, in that we do have age limits on other things, but this is a right of theirs which I shall not take away.

It is true that we are one of very few countries to adopt this kind of system, but I expect there to be a significant number of special interest groups which have incompatible policies for one reason or another, and that they will add up in the vote.

Unless under clause 5 an age limit on being able to vote is set at "age 0" we cannot abide by this proposal. Children do not need protecting from the right to vote.

[Monikian WA Mission]

Why should I set laws forcing minors and other species to face a judge and declare themselves entirely adults before being able to vote?

Faliksa Albertron responded.

"From reading this legislation the age at which voting rights would be obtained would be to individual nations to set for themselves. While setting an age of 0 may go against the 'spirit' of the proposed resolution, it would be well within the letter of it, or so I have been informed by the Office of Innovative Compliance."

Children have the right to vote on matters which will affect their lives without facing a judge or being completely emancipated.

"In your nation sure...fine. In my nation we are not so willing to allow children those rights because we do not feel them--on average to be capable of making good choices in this area."

The argument that they are inexperienced, naive braggards who lack any sense of forethought is thrown into disrepute by the fact that 35 year old rednecks who don't know how to read are also allowed to vote. They might not be able to take responsibility for their lives in other respects, in that we do have age limits on other things, but this is a right of theirs which I shall not take away.

"We Monikians do not understand what a 'rednecks' is. Given the description of these being persons who are 35 years old and still illiterate we might assume that they are similar to our Eenos--or those who live in the wild deserts of our planet and have little interaction with the rest of society. That said, I think that given that children are not considered competent to make decisions about their own body they are also not competent to make decisions concerning the state. If your nation disagrees with that argument it can as section 1 clause 5 states set the voting age at 0."

Unless under clause 5 an age limit on being able to vote is set at "age 0" we cannot abide by this proposal. Children do not need protecting from the right to vote.

"As I have stated the Monikian Office of Innovative Compliance has determined that setting the voting age on a national level under clause would acceptable. However, I doubt that many countries would agree with a threshold of majority resolution which explicitly stipulated a voting age of O."

[Flibbleites]

You know, the more people try to do this, the more I'm convinced that it's utterly impossible to do.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Eireann Fae]

Rowan and Episky eye each other after the Digital Rule Ambassador stops talking. Both turn to the Ambassador, incredulous. It takes Episky a moment to think of something to say, and it takes Rowan a few more seconds to dutifully begin her translation.

Why should I set laws forcing minors and other species to face a judge and declare themselves entirely adults before being able to vote?

"Is your nation run by infants and toddlers, Ambassador? You are free to set the Threshold of Majority as low as you wish, but you should realize that most children should not be in charge of much besides picking which colour to paint with..."

Children have the right to vote on matters which will affect their lives without facing a judge or being completely emancipated. The argument that they are inexperienced, naive braggards who lack any sense of forethought is thrown into disrepute by the fact that 35 year old rednecks who don't know how to read are also allowed to vote. They might not be able to take responsibility for their lives in other respects, in that we do have age limits on other things, but this is a right of theirs which I shall not take away.

"We are well aware of the abilities of special children. The girl who addresses you now has not seen a dozen summers pass, and she has full rights as a citizen of Eireann Fae, and a government official." The child smiles at this before going on. "I like to think my translator is a shining example of a Human child that deserves her emancipation. You could apply this resolution's requirements to your own law, and set the Threshold of Majority as you will. It need not be an age, but can be demonstratable mental competence - your "thirty five year old redneck" that cannot read could be exempted from voting, while a seven year old child with wisdom and knowledge beyond their years may be fully emancipated."

"It should also be noted that the Threshold of Majority does not apply strictly to voting, as you seem to believe. We direct your attention to Clause 5, which outlines several examples of what this resolution could be applied to."

Unless under clause 5 an age limit on being able to vote is set at "age 0" we cannot abide by this proposal. Children do not need protecting from the right to vote.

"Ambassador, Human infants completely lack the mental capacity to to do much else but cry, eat, sleep, and soil themselves. There is no reason for such a creature to be immediately emancipated. However, Part 2 outlines quite specifically a process through which minors can be emancipated before they have naturally crossed whatever Threshold you have set. It is true that being economically sound may set too high a bar," Rowan's gaze darts to Ms. Harper, "but certainly the requirement of a basic education is not too much to ask."

[Mousebumples]

You know, the more people try to do this, the more I'm convinced that it's utterly impossible to do.

I'm with you, Bob. I've yet to be convinced of the necessity of such a stipulation, so I will continue to vote against, should this matter reach a vote yet again.

After all, the WA (and her predecessor) has survived - and some might say flourished - for years without such a law in place.

[Quelesh]

Ms. Harper will make a start: she has forked the affected clauses into a separate part in the resolution:

Part 2: Emancipation of Minors:-

1. Member countries may provide for individuals to petition for emancipation prior to achieving the Threshold of Majority through their judicial system, provided that the following requirements are ratified:-
a) The minor must be able to prove that they are economically self-sufficient;
b) The minor must be able to prove that they have obtained an educational degree or diploma which allows them to pursue a sustainable career/ambition;

2. An individual who is emancipated in such manner shall be considered over the Threshold of Majority for the purpose of national and international law.

This new wording is a distinctly negative development, and we would not possibly be able to vote in favor if this wording restricting emancipation is in the final draft. I do see that you have reworded the clause about education, though, which is a small improvement after the larger negative change. While it is possible to get academic "degrees" in Quelesh, most people do not and they are generally not necessary.

"Is your nation run by infants and toddlers, Ambassador? You are free to set the Threshold of Majority as low as you wish, but you should realize that most children should not be in charge of much besides picking which colour to paint with..."

Quelesh also has no voting age, Ambassador, but I have yet to see an "infant" or "toddler" cast a ballot.

[Eireann Fae]

Quelesh also has no voting age, Ambassador, but I have yet to see an "infant" or "toddler" cast a ballot.

"And I have yet to see you complain that they do not."

[Monikian WA Mission]

This new wording is a distinctly negative development, and we would not possibly be able to vote in favor if this wording restricting emancipation is in the final draft. I do see that you have reworded the clause about education, though, which is a small improvement after the larger negative change. While it is possible to get academic "degrees" in Quelesh, most people do not and they are generally not necessary.

"We would like to point out the the Ambassador from Quelesh that as the current draft reads it simply says educational level. So this brings in the question what kind of educational level we are talking about. In Monkiah, this could mean an engineering degree or it could be a basic education. It depends on the type of work which the individual wishes to pursue. Obviously an engineer would need a long drawn out educational process--usually at least 2 years at a University for a Standard Degree plus 4 more years in a Civil/Military/Biological engineering school whereas working at the local spleen shop, or whatever the equivalent for a spleen shop is in Quelesh is likely to require nothing more as far as education as knowing how to read, knowing to not touch hot surfaces without safety equipment and to not put one's fingers underneath the sharp edge of a knife when cutting the food product in question. It is our feeling that the judicial systems of most nations are competent to determine when a minor has obtained the educational level to obtain and sustain the level of employment necessary to provide for their own maintenance.

"Given that WA nations are required by international law to pay above their basic poverty line by international law.

REQUIRES that no person in full-time employment be paid the equivalent of a weekly net wage of less than 25% over the Basic Poverty Line;

REQUIRES further that no person in full-time employment be paid the equivalent of a weekly net wage of less than 25% over the Dependent Poverty Line unless that person has no dependents and explicitly waives this right;

"Just about any job worked for 30 or more hours per week should be suitable for sustaining the individual. If the problem we are encountering is that a Member Nation does not consider being a student (IE studying for a particular field of future work--which is considered to be employment in Monkiah) to be a job in and of itself that is a problem of the Nation. Furthermore, as the proposal is written it would still be able to stand if passed and if GAR#21 were repealed."

Quelesh also has no voting age, Ambassador, but I have yet to see an "infant" or "toddler" cast a ballot.

"As the proposal is written Quelesh could set the voting age arbitrarily at 0, and then apply any other restrictions they deem necessary to exercise the right to vote on a national level."

[The Digital Rule]

If some old idiot does something stupid, they should face the consequences, because they take responsibility and it was their fault. When it comes to voting, regardless of age, everybody faces the consequences, even if some people lack responsibility, and even though they were not at fault. Second of all, the right to vote is not considered as serious an issue as emancipation as the chances of something going wrong based on a minority of votes is minimal. Statistically speaking, the young are least likely to vote for a corrupt powerhouse, and more likely to vote for powerless minority political parties. They're also one of the smaller groups among the voter's minorities. Finally, their votes seem about as frivolous and stupid as the next adult's based on recent statistics.

If we can set age 0 as the point in which a conscious being is allowed to vote, then we might not see the point in having an age of majority, but we may as well support this resolution :/

[Turtatalia]

We have several quibbles, mostly in relation to the Great Book of Laws Pertaining to the Resolutions passed in these Halls, so honourably drafted and promulgated by the Honourable Most Glorious Hack. Our other quibbles relate to statutory interpretation in our own nation.

Our first quibble:

1. Member states must adopt an Threshold of Majority for each sapient species within their jurisdiction, which occurs at a point or age where a typical individual is of an appropriate and/or sufficient mental capacity to be considered emancipated.

As far as we know from the aforementioned Rulebook Pertaining to Resolutions, there can be no optionality in a resolution. I shall elaborate by giving example:

GA Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is.

I must point out that in all cases, under our legal system, the Rulebook takes precedence over all passed Resolutions in cases of quibbles

Second quibble:

2. Member countries whose population is made up of multiple species may freely define a Threshold of Majority unique to each of their species.

Again, same reason. If the Author had put in "Member countries...MUST...", then there would be no quibble. However, as the author has put in the "may", rather than the imperative "must", she automatically illegalizes this resolution due to the insertion of optionality.

Our third quibble - the entirety of part two on emancipation:

Part 2: Emancipation of Minors:-

1. Member countries who provide for individuals to petition for emancipation prior to achieving the Threshold of Majority through their judicial system must consider the following requirements for the petition to be valid:-
a) The minor must be able to prove that they are economically self-sufficient, or would be without the interference of their legal guardians;
b) The minor must be able to prove that they have obtained an educational level which allows them to pursue a sustainable career/ambition;

2. An individual who is emancipated in such manner shall be considered over the Threshold of Majority for the purpose of national and international law.

Our quibble is with our judicial interpretation of this law. Are you suggesting that "Threashold of Majority" is a package, where no one may receive any other adult benefits until they reach the general threashold of majority age, because, in Turtatalia, our age of legal consent is fifteen, and our age of legally owning a slave is thirteen. If we were to adopt this law, would we be forced to change these ages to eighteen, when a person is considered an adult according to our customs? I think that this is the implication

Unless I receive a satisfactory answer to these queries, I will withdraw support

Yours;

Dr Ivan Quicksilver (LLD, civil and international law with specialism in codified legal systems)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

You know, the more people try to do this, the more I'm convinced that it's utterly impossible to do.

I'm with you, Bob. I've yet to be convinced of the necessity of such a stipulation, so I will continue to vote against, should this matter reach a vote yet again.

After all, the WA (and her predecessor) has survived - and some might say flourished - for years without such a law in place.

Ms. Harper must admit that for some reason the whole idea has come crashing down. Clause one indeed is mandatory because of the word "must". Clause two could also be a "must" and merged because of the age differences we have observed. The sensible age of majority idea is likely to be flawed if we said that member states must adopt a single age or stage for all species. Finally, there is no intention to suggest that the Age of Majority is a package of rights. It is supposed to refer to the independence of the child and the entering into a contract. It might be the wording: "individuals to petition for emancipation prior to achieving the Threshold of Majority" could have read as "individuals under the Threshold of Majority to petition for emancipation". Either way, It's starting to look brittle.

[Monikian WA Mission]

Our first quibble:

As far as we know from the aforementioned Rulebook Pertaining to Resolutions, there can be no optionality in a resolution. I shall elaborate by giving example:

GA Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is.

I must point out that in all cases, under our legal system, the Rulebook takes precedence over all passed Resolutions in cases of quibbles

"Under Section 1 Clause 1, the word Must is in the language. That is to say that should this resolution be passed nations must create a threshold of majority ."

Second quibble:
Again, same reason. If the Author had put in "Member countries...MUST...", then there would be no quibble. However, as the author has put in the "may", rather than the imperative "must", she automatically illegalizes this resolution due to the insertion of optionality.

"We would disagree. Section 1 Clause 2 only states that nations may create multiple thresholds of majority in the case of having more than one sapient species. In other words let us use this example, a nation has humans and a species that is close to humans and matures at nearly the same rate. Under such a situation it may be prudent for a nation to set only one threshold but they have the option to establish more than one threshold.

"Furthermore, it is not unusual for there to be optional clauses in weaker strength resolutions. I am sure that if this draft was illegal someone from the secretariat would have pointed it out."

Our third quibble - the entirety of part two on emancipation:

Our quibble is with our judicial interpretation of this law. Are you suggesting that "Threashold of Majority" is a package, where no one may receive any other adult benefits until they reach the general threashold of majority age, because, in Turtatalia, our age of legal consent is fifteen, and our age of legally owning a slave is thirteen. If we were to adopt this law, would we be forced to change these ages to eighteen, when a person is considered an adult according to our customs? I think that this is the implication

Unless I receive a satisfactory answer to these queries, I will withdraw support

Yours;

Dr Ivan Quicksilver (LLD, civil and international law with specialism in codified legal systems)

"We cannot speak for the Author of this proposal, however, it is the Monikian position that a threshold of Majority is more or less a package deal. One is either an adult in their nation or they are not. However, the legislation does provide for nations to set or their sub-national units to set arbitrary thresholds for various privileges and uses.

"The emancipation section deals mainly with those minors who for whatever reason need to be considered adults before they achieve the national threshold for that naturally.

"Also we think Dr. Quicksilver, that you would be interested to know that Slavery in WA Nations is prohibited by GAR#23."